The rate of the founder Jewish mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in prostate cancer patients in Israel

Inherited predisposition occurs in 5–10% of all prostate cancer (CaP) patients, but the genes involved in conferring genetic susceptibility remain largely unknown. Several lines of evidence indicate that germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 might be associated with an increased risk for CaP. Three mutations in these two genes (185delAG and 5382InsC (BRCA1) and 6174delT (BRCA2) occur in about 2.5% of the general Ashkenazi population, and the 185delAG BRCA1 mutation, in up to 1% of non-Ashkenazi Jews. In order to assess the contribution of these germline mutations to prostate cancer in Jewish Israeli patients, we tested 174 unselected prostate cancer patients (95 of Ashkenazi origin) for these mutations by PCR amplification and modified restriction enzyme digests. Patient’s age range was 45–81 years (median 66), and in 24 (14.4%) the disease was diagnosed prior to 55 years of age. Nineteen (11%) and 12 (6.9%) patients had a first or second degree relative with CaP or breast cancer, respectively. Overall, five mutation carriers were detected: 2/152 (1.3%) 185delAG, 2/104 (2%) 5382InsC, and 1/158 (0.6%) 6174delT. In all carriers, the disease was diagnosed after the age of 55, and only one of them had a family history of breast and CaP. In addition, no allelic losses at the BRCA1 locus were demonstrated in 17 patients with a family history of CaP, using seven microsatellite markers. We conclude that the rate of the predominant Jewish BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in CaP patients does not significantly differ from that of the general population, and that mutational inactivation of the BRCA1 is rare in familial CaP. Thus, germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations probably contribute little to CaP occurrence, to inherited predisposition, and to early onset disease in Jewish individuals. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaig

Nebuliser therapy in the intensive care unit

The relationship between identity, lived experience, sexual practices and the language through which these are conveyed has been widely debated in sexuality literature. For example, ‘coming out’ has famously been conceptualised as a ‘speech act’ (Sedgwick 1990) and as a collective narrative (Plummer 1995), while a growing concern for individuals’ diverse identifications in relations to their sexual and gender practices has produced interesting research focusing on linguistic practices among LGBT-identified individuals (Leap 1995; Kulick 2000; Cameron and Kulick 2006; Farqhar 2000). While an explicit focus on language remains marginal to literature on sexualities (Kulick 2000), issue of language use and translation are seldom explicitly addressed in the growing literature on intersectionality. Yet intersectional perspectives ‘reject the separability of analytical and identity categories’ (McCall 2005:1771), and therefore have an implicit stake in the ‘vernacular’ language of the researched, in the ‘scientific’ language of the researcher and in the relationship of continuity between the two. Drawing on literature within gay and lesbian/queer studies and cross-cultural studies, this chapter revisits debates on sexuality, language and intersectionality. I argue for the importance of giving careful consideration to the language we choose to use as researchers to collectively define the people whose experiences we try to capture. I also propose that language itself can be investigated as a productive way to foreground how individual and collective identifications are discursively constructed, and to unpack the diversity of lived experience. I address intersectional complexity as a methodological issue, where methodology is understood not only as the methods and practicalities of doing research, but more broadly as ‘a coherent set of ideas about the philosophy, methods and data that underlie the research process and the production of knowledge’ (McCall 2005:1774). My points are illustrated with examples drawn from my ethnographic study on ‘lesbian’ identity in urban Russia, interspersed with insights from existing literature. In particular, I aim to show that an explicit focus on language can be a productive way to explore the intersections between the global, the national and the local in cross-cultural research on sexuality, while also addressing issues of positionality and accountability to the communities researched

A View from the Past Into our Collective Future: The Oncofertility Consortium Vision Statement

Today, male and female adult and pediatric cancer patients, individuals transitioning between gender identities, and other individuals facing health extending but fertility limiting treatments can look forward to a fertile future. This is, in part, due to the work of members associated with the Oncofertility Consortium. The Oncofertility Consortium is an international, interdisciplinary initiative originally designed to explore the urgent unmet need associated with the reproductive future of cancer survivors. As the strategies for fertility management were invented, developed or applied, the individuals for who the program offered hope, similarly expanded. As a community of practice, Consortium participants share information in an open and rapid manner to addresses the complex health care and quality-of-life issues of cancer, transgender and other patients. To ensure that the organization remains contemporary to the needs of the community, the field designed a fully inclusive mechanism for strategic planning and here present the findings of this process. This interprofessional network of medical specialists, scientists, and scholars in the law, medical ethics, religious studies and other disciplines associated with human interventions, explore the relationships between health, disease, survivorship, treatment, gender and reproductive longevity. The goals are to continually integrate the best science in the service of the needs of patients and build a community of care that is ready for the challenges of the field in the future

“A Hideous Torture on Himself”: Madness and Self-Mutilation in Victorian Literature

This paper suggests that late nineteenth-century definitions of self-mutilation, a new category of psychiatric symptomatology, were heavily influenced by the use of selfinjury as a rhetorical device in the novel, for the literary text held a high status in Victorian psychology. In exploring Dimmesdale’s “self-mutilation” in The Scarlet Letter in conjunction with psychiatric case histories, the paper indicates a number of common techniques and themes in literary and psychiatric texts. As well as illuminating key elements of nineteenth-century conceptions of the self, and the relation of mind and body through ideas of madness, this exploration also serves to highlight the social commentary implicit in many Victorian medical texts. Late nineteenth-century England, like mid-century New England, required the individual to help himself and, simultaneously, others; personal charity and individual philanthropy were encouraged, while state intervention was often presented as dubious. In both novel and psychiatric text, self-mutilation is thus presented as the ultimate act of selfish preoccupation, particularly in cases on the “borderlands” of insanity